bopp esq bak

820

much duplicated here?

NO MERRI

SEE MASTER PLAN

SEE TRUE THE VOTE SKIM MONEY?

---

WIKI

True the Vote

An investigation by The Center for Investigative Reporting found that Phillips and the Texas-based nonprofit organization True the Vote engaged in questionable transactions that involving more than $1 million sent to its founders, and a longtime romantic affair between the founder Catherine Engelbrecht and Phillips.^[47][19]

On August 17, 2012, True the Vote sent $5,000 to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which is illegal because a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit may not contribute to any political party or candidates.^[48]

In 2014, True the Vote paid $25,000 to American Solutions for Winning the Future for a “donor list rental.”^[49][50] Phillips was the director of American Solutions for Winning the Future.^[49][51][52]

In 2015, True the Vote gave $30,000 to a company called Define Idea Inc. for “IT support services.”^[49][53] Phillips was also a director of Define Idea Inc.^[49][54]

True the Vote gave a retainer of half a million dollars to James Bopp’s law firm to lead the prosecution of cases related to 2020 election fraud claims, however, Bopp only filed four of seven lawsuits committed to Fred Eshelman in exchange for his $2.5 million donation. Then, less than a week after filing, they voluntarily dismissed the suits claiming that they were saving the client money; Bopp kept the money and True the Vote kept the remaining $2 million.^[55]

Of the $2 million left over from Eshelman's donation, $750,000 went to OPSEC Group LLC, a new company created by Phillips and based out of Alabama, purportedly to do voter analysis.^[47][56] The contract with OPSEC did not appear to be disclosed in the 2020 tax return True The Vote provided to Reveal.^[47][57] Specifically, on November 9, 2020, OPSEC Group submitted a bill for $350,000 to True the Vote for “Validate the Vote”, and again billed another $700,000 on December 7 for a project called Eyes on Georgia, according to court records.^[47]

DK MONEY GIBNEY 2025

SIR MATTHEW HALE WITCHES, OK TO RAPE WIFE? DOBBS

[### Opinion | Alito cites misogynist Matthew Hale in Roe opinion

_The Washington Post_

https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2022/05/09 › alito-r...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/09/alito-roe-sir-matthew-hale-misogynist/)

May 9, 2022 — Hale was on the bench so long ago that his judgeship included presiding over a witchcraft trial where he sentenced two “witches” to death.

[### Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial ...

_ProPublica_

https://www.propublica.org › article › abortion-roe-wad...](https://www.propublica.org/article/abortion-roe-wade-alito-scotus-hale)

May 6, 2022 — A written record of the trial recounts what Hale told them: “That there were such creatures as witches he made no doubt at all; for first, the ...

[### Matthew Hale (jurist)

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Matthew_Hale_(jurist)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hale_%28jurist%29)

Modern scholars also offer criticism of Hale for his execution of at least two women for witchcraft in the Bury St Edmunds witch trials and his belief that ...

---

lever

DAVID:Back at his storefront office in Terre Haute, Indiana, James Bopp had his eye on deregulating the campaign finance system, a cause that Kennedy seemed especially amenable to. So Bopp elbowed his way to the front of the queue with a case that brought his two pet causes together, the crusade against abortion and the crusade to deregulate campaign finance laws.

JAMES BOPP JR.: I can't tell the story without talking about Wisconsin right to life.

DAVID:James Bopp saw a new chance to try to go big. It was absolutely critical. Bopp is talking about FEC v Wisconsin right to life, a Supreme Court case that was heard right after John Roberts and Sam Alito were installed, right when Anthony Kennedy was the new swing vote

JAMES BOPP JR.:Wisconsin Right to Life contacts me and says that there's an upcoming vote on Bush's judicial nominees, Feingold of McCain, Feingold fame is up for election, and we want to lobby him, and the vote is going to be in September.

ARCHIVAL NEWS FOOTAGE: The special interest anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life is now airing this TV spot. There are a lot of judicial nominees out there who can't go to work, but come this weekend, this ad and corresponding radio hits will be illegal. Why nominees because Wisconsin Right to Life or WRTL talks about in its ad, contact Senators Feingold and Cole and tell them to oppose the filibuster.

DAVID: Wisconsin Right To Life ads fell within the 60-day window or blackout period before that year's general election, which made it subject to the restrictions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which, as you heard before, had been upheld by the pre-Roberts, pre-Alito Supreme Court. Under that law, the group couldn't mention Senator Feingold by name, because that would be considered electioneering. So Bopp sued on the grounds that those restrictions were a violation of free speech.

On April 25, 2007, James Bopp argued that case in front of the Roberts and Alito Supreme Court. The questioning focused on whether the Wisconsin right-to-life ads were just issue ads designed to lobby, or whether they were a stealthy form of electioneering against the candidate in the election. Here's Justice Stevens questioning Bopp about the distinction.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN PAUL STEVENS):Are you trying to convince us? The purpose of these ads was to convince Senator Feingold to change his position on filibuster.

JAMES BOPP JR.: It was, indeed it was to lobby him.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN PAUL STEVENS):Did you think that was a realistic goal?

JAMES BOPP JR.:Yes, as it turns out, because in 2006 we ran the same sort of anti-filibuster as and Senator Cole, now up for reelection, changed his position on the filibuster. So these things happen. In other words, people, people's positions are affected by grassroots lobbying, and at least people should have the opportunity.

DAVID: Then, Anthony Kennedy chimed in.

Archival Clip, Justice Anthony Kennedy: Is that called democracy?

DAVID:Senators Feingold and Cole and tell them to oppose the filibuster those

Archival Clip, JAMES BOPP JR.:We are hopeful. Your Honor.

DAVID: Ultimately, the conservative majority on the court, including the key swing vote, Anthony Kennedy narrowly agreed with Bopp, saying that Wisconsin right to life's ads were not express political advocacy, since they didn't literally tell people whether or not to vote for specific candidates. The Court declared that Wisconsin right to life's ads could not be regulated by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Here's Chief Justice John Roberts once again, play acting as a baseball umpire.

Archival Clip, John Roberts: Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.

DAVID: Put another way, a mere four years after the old Rehnquist Court dunked on the master planners and upheld McCain's campaign finance law, the new Roberts Court had just sided with those same master planners and overturned a major part of that law. This was an Empire Strikes Back moment for the ages.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): I call that the ‘Magic words’ case.

DAVID: This is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. White House first took his seat as the junior senator from Rhode Island just six months before the decision in FEC versus Wisconsin right to life came down. He told us just how significant this little noticed case really was. That was the case in which Supreme Court decided what the magic words were, that if you used them in an ad, it became a political ad and was subject to a variety of regulations and limitations. But if you didn't use those magic words, then you could say that your ad was not a political ad, but it was issue advocacy. You weren't recommending a vote against Senator Whitehouse. You were just recommending that voters call up Senator Whitehouse and ask why he was a thieving, dirty, puppy-hating, anti-American scoundrel, right? The effect on the airwaves is the same, but if you didn't use the magic words about vote or elect then this whole new avenue opened up for dirty political TV advertising.

DAVID: Whitehouse said that the little magic words loophole started opening up the floodgates for unregulated, anonymous, dark money ads that buy elections, all under the guise of educating the public with so-called ‘issue ads’ rather than electioneering. I think that was the purpose of the exercise. Here are the words that if you don't use them, you're good to go on election spending.

DAVID: So you can see why. James Bopp told us that the decision in FEC v Wisconsin Right To Life was absolutely critical. It was a huge blow to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but perhaps more importantly, it showed Bopp how this new Roberts Alito court was inclined to rule on all of these campaign finance issues. Bopp also noticed something else. Arch conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote a concurrence, agreeing with the court's decision, but saying it should have gone a step further and completely eliminated McCain-Feingold's prohibitions against unlimited corporate spending to sway elections.}:

The concurrence was backed by Clarence Thomas, hardly a surprise, but there was a third signature on the document, you guessed it, Anthony Kennedy. That was a signal to James Bopp that perhaps he could get Kennedy, the old Sacramento Swamp Thing, to channel his predecessor, Lewis Powell, and go huge.

ARCHIVAL CAMPAIGN SPEECH (HILLARY CLINTON):I announced today that I'm forming a presidential exploratory committee. I'm not just starting a campaign, though. I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America.

DAVID: It's early 2007. Hillary Clinton has announced her campaign for president. James Bopp is in Terre Haute, working on arguments that might get justices to go big in that Wisconsin right to life case.

ARCHIVAL CAMPAIGN SPEECH (HILLARY CLINTON):So let the conversation begin, I have a feeling it's going to be very interesting.

DAVID: And then one day, James Bopp’s phone rings,

JAMES BOPP JR.: So I'm sitting in my office, and I get a phone call from David Bossie.

DAVID: David Bossie is a conservative activist. In 1992 he was working for a non-profit that was first founded by the same people who made one of the sleaziest dark money ads in American history, the Willie Horton ad that shifted the 1988 presidential election that you heard about in episode six. By 2000, Bossie was the organization's president, so James Bopp picks up the phone to talk to David Bossie and Bossie asks Bopp if he'd represent his organization in a juicy lawsuit about Hillary Clinton that could end up letting corporations spend unlimited amounts of money in politics.

ARCHIVAL AD: Oh, baby. You know what I like.

DAVID:James Bopp likes big campaign finance cases, and this one might be the biggest of them all.

JAMES BOPP JR.: And he said, ‘I'm working on a movie called Hillary: The Movie, alright?’ And this is now in early 2007, I'm working on a movie, and she's running for president.

DAVID:Hillary: The Movie was promoted by Bossie as a documentary, but it was functionally just a hyper conservative 90-minute anti-Clinton campaign ad with Sad, Scary Music, all funded by a boatload of anonymous money.

“HILLARY: THE MOVIE”: She's deceitful. She'll make up any story, lie about anything, as long as it serves her purpose of the moment, and the American people are going to catch on to it. I can't think of any other politician in history who has shown such a disrespect and a contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law as Hillary.

DAVID: Bossie was calling bopp to figure out how to drop this thing into the 2008 election cycle while skirting campaign finance laws that apply to political ads during elections.

JAMES BOPP JR.:I want to broadcast this movie, and I need your help two ways. Okay, first way is to make sure that our movie script does not have an appeal to vote for or against a candidate, because I want to be able to do this, and if it has an appeal to vote, I'm prohibited, so I want you to give me the advice to make sure that they could still do this movie.

DAVID:The second thing Bossie wanted Bopp's help on was finding a legal way to get around the requirement to file a disclosure report about who exactly was funding the project.

JAMES BOPP JR.: The report would have required him to reveal his donors, and people would not want to contribute if they are going to be outed as funding an anti-Hillary certainly critical Hillary movie, right? So he doesn't want to have to do this report of their donors.

DAVID: This is something we've seen over and over again in our reporting, conservatives want to be able to broadcast whatever messages they want, but they don't want to have to admit who is actually funding the message. And this quote, unquote movie was pretty nasty.

“HILLARY: THE MOVIE”:I knew Richard Nixon, and I'll tell you something, she's no Richard Nixon. She's worse, ruthless, vindictive, venal, sneaky, ideological, intolerant, liar is a good one…scares the hell out of me.

DAVID:So Bopp took the lessons he learned in the Wisconsin case, and he set about strategically assembling this new case using arguments that Roberts and Scalia and Kennedy had signaled they were sympathetic to, and just like his inspiration, Thurgood Marshall in Brown v Board of Education, James Bopp hoped this case would be the big one.

Bossie's organization had run into issues with federal election regulators in the past. They tried to make some so-called documentaries before, but the dark money group was clearly a political organization and not a movie studio. So more than once, the Federal Election Commission insisted that they were subject to McCain-Feingold's restrictions. Bopp anticipated a similar pushback on Hillary: The Movie, but rather than waiting for federal election regulators to send a cease-and-desist letter to Bossie, Bopp had a genius idea. He went to a lower court demanding a declaratory judgment up front one that would officially allow Bossie to air his documentary right up until the 2008 primaries. In other words. Courts. Bopp took a play out of the Powell memo and used this case as a preemptive attack.

LEWIS BLACK AS LEWIS POWELL:The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate.

DAVID: He used this obscure movie to create a case out of thin air, the lower court said, essentially no campaign finance restrictions obviously apply to this, but that ruling gave Bopp what he really wanted, a way to appeal the case up to John Roberts, Sam Alito, and Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. When Hillary: The Movie became a legal case, it ended up being named after Bossie’s non-Movie Studio, nonprofit, maybe you've heard of it:

…

DAVID: Citizens United was appealed up to the Supreme Court in August of 2008 Hillary Clinton was long gone from the presidential race, defeated by Barack Obama, but that didn't matter, the master planners were after something much bigger. The Court agreed to hear the case three months later, and then David Bossie replaced James Bopp.

Bossie bumped bop for a new Hot Shot attorney named Ted Olson. By 2008 Olson was already famous in master plan circles. He'd been a founding member of the Federalist Society and the bush campaign's mouthpiece at the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore, which decided the 2000 election. Supposedly, David Bossie had seen Olson win a Republican lawyer of the Year Award at an event in Washington, DC in October 2008 where another attorney called Olson the quote, “winningest Supreme Court lawyer.”

So when bossie’s challenge was accepted at the High Court The following month, he told his co-founder that they should ditch old James Bopp in Terre Haute and pick up Olson instead like leaving prom with the popular girls.

When Olson took over the Citizens United case, he slightly reformulated Bopp's argument. He focused on the idea that Hillary: The Movie was not what the McCain Feingold campaign finance law was actually supposed to prohibit. It was a documentary movie that viewers had to seek out on video on demand, not a screeching election ad that couldn't be avoided on cable TV.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (TED OLSON):Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, participation in the political process is the First Amendment's most fundamental guarantee yet, that freedom is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented by the administrative state.

DAVID: It was Olson who first brought up the word “corruption.”

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (TED OLSON):The government cannot prove, and has not attempted to prove, that a 90-minute documentary poses any threat of quid pro quo, corruption or its appearance. Indeed, this documentary is the very definition of robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest, that the First Amendment is there to guarantee.

DAVID: Olson argued with a straight face that Hillary the movie wasn't an election focused ad governed by campaign finance laws, despite the fact that it was dropped in the middle of an election and spends 90 minutes insisting that Hillary Clinton was unqualified for the presidency and was, I'm paraphrasing here, basically the Antichrist. Justice Souter for one wasn't buying. It.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (DAVID SOUTER):Doesn't this one fall into campaign advocacy. I mean, I've got the government's brief open at pages 18 and 19, with the quotations. She'll lie about anything. She's deceitful. She's ruthless, cunning, dishonest. Do anything for power. Will speak dishonestly, reckless, a congenital liar, sorely lacking in qualifications, not qualified as commander in chief. I mean, this sounds to me like campaign advocacy.

DAVID: Yeah, you think? In response, the master planners on the Supreme Court pretty much hijacked the oral arguments the same way your crotchety uncle pulls the ‘well actually’ move to steer the Thanksgiving dinner conversation towards his bizarre theories. For example, instead of a discussion about money, influence, election buying and corruption, what the case was actually about justice, Sam Alito forced the government's defense lawyer into an absurd debate about book banning. Here's Kennedy.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (ANTHONY KENNEDY):Suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book, your position is that, under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the 60 or 30 day period

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (TED OLSON):if the book contained the functional equivalent of Express advocacy, that is, if it was subject to no reasonable interpretation

DAVID: They proceeded to get into an even more ludicrous debate about e-books that are accessed via satellite

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (TED OLSON):within the 60 30, day period. If it comes from a satellite, it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under the statute.

DAVID:I mean, this is a case about a movie. What are they even talking about? I feel like I'm Steve Martin in Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

“Planes, Trains and Automobiles”:When you're telling these little stories, here's a good idea: Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener.

DAVID:The FEC’s lawyer tried to steer the justices back on track.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO:It can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book, and could be required to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC.

DAVID:That was the actual point. And unfortunately, the FEC’s lawyer didn't make it very well. It wasn't really about whether the government could or would prohibit the publication of a book that urged its readers to vote or not vote for a specific candidate. It was about a corporation being able to anonymously funnel money from its coffers into election communications with no restrictions, and the government was arguing that they'd have to use a regulated PAC or explicitly disclosed political money instead.

It's worth reiterating that none of this is what the original case was asking about. But as the ever more twisted and deranged arguments went on, the conservative justices like Anthony Kennedy kept insisting that it was a free speech question, even though it really wasn't. Then an hour later, it was over.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN ROBERTS): Thank you, Counsel. The case is submitted.

ULA:What happens behind the scenes when the justices vote on this case is kind of my favorite part of the story.

DAVID:This is producer Ula Culpa, to tell us about when things got really interesting.

ULA:So after oral argument, the justices meet in private and have a round of initial votes on the case. It falls basically along ideological lines, with the four liberals against Citizens United and the five conservatives, including Anthony Kennedy, in favor of saying that McCain-Feingold [Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act] did not apply to Hillary: The Movie, Roberts gets to work on a narrow opinion saying that, but Kennedy writes a concurrence that argues that they should go way bigger and invalidate any campaign finance restrictions on allegedly independent political groups like Citizens United.

DAVID:So Roberts and the other conservatives then compare drafts, and they love Kennedy's idea so much that Roberts withdraws his more narrow opinion and lets Kennedy write the majority

ULA: Exactly. And this is where the drama hits after Justice Souter sees what Roberts and Kennedy are planning to do. He gets pissed and writes a dissent, and it has become infamous in legal circles because it was this Full Tilt bridge burning attack on the logic of his fellow justices, which is something that almost never happens, and definitely not like this. Reportedly, Souter berated not only the conclusions that Roberts and Kennedy had come to, but the like intellectual depravity to step outside of and way beyond what this case was asking in the first place.

DAVID: Finally, someone was calling bullshit. Okay, so read us some excerpts.

ULA:Well, I can't.

DAVID: Wait. Why?

ULA:Because very few people have actually ever seen Souter's dissent, and that's because not long after he drafted it, just as David Souter has informed the White House, he will retire at the end of a Supreme Court term in June. God, it's exactly like that scene from Half-Baked.

“HALF-BAKED”: Fuck you, Fuck you, fuck you… You're cool…Fuck you. I'm out

ULA: Totally and then John Roberts basically makes sure Souter’s dissent never gets published as part of the official record. Because instead of the ruling coming out at the end of the court's term, like you might expect, Citizens United is suddenly scheduled for re-argument in the fall.

DAVID:What the hell is reargument?

ULA: It's when the Court asks the lawyers to write all new briefs about all new questions. In this case, Roberts asked them to address big constitutional questions that signaled that the court wasn't going to issue a narrow ruling about one movie. It was going to follow Kennedy's lead and go really, really big.

DAVID: So here we are in the fall of 2009, things still seem all Hopey-and-Changey over in the White House, but only a few blocks away at the Supreme Court. Shit is about to go down. The Master planners had taken over the court with Roberts and Alito. James Bopp had given Anthony Kennedy the chance to go big, and Roberts figures out a way to make it all happen. This is like the master planners a team moment.

DAVID: So six months after the first argument in the Citizens United case, David Souter is retired. His barn burning warning about the end of democracy is nowhere to be found. The ideological Terminator John Roberts rewinds the clock and lets Federalist Society luminary Ted Olson make a whole new argument to the court,

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (TED OLSON):Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

DAVID: This was no longer a little argument about a specific campaign finance law and a dumb documentary, but a robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

Olson and his client Citizens United were now resurrecting the old free speech arguments from Buckley v. Valeo and from Lewis Powell's Bellotti ruling that you heard about in episode five. Essentially, they argued that money is protected speech. They also argued that corporations, therefore have a constitutional right to spend unlimited money in elections, as long as it's not directly coordinated by candidates, and that such independent spending isn't a corrupting force. The justices seem supportive of that view. John McCain said they seemed totally out of touch with reality.

ARCHIVAL NEWS FOOTAGE (JOHN MCCAIN): I was rather disappointed in some of the justices apparent naivete as to how corporate and union and unlimited money affects the legislative process. Does anyone believe that the rights of average citizens to be heard in Washington would not be overridden by massive, unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and unions?

DAVID: McCain was correct. Nobody believed that, but that was a feature of the Citizens Unitedcase, not a bug. A ruling in favor of Citizens United would override average citizens' voices and create a society run by corporations and oligarchs, just as James Bopp's fellow Hoosier Ron Swanson had dreamed of back in fictional small town, Indiana.

“PARKS AND RECREATION”:I think that all government is a waste of taxpayer money. My dream is to have the park system privatized and run entirely for profit by corporations like Chuck E. Cheese. They have an impeccable business model. I would rather work for Chuck E. Cheese.

DAVID: McCain, Feingold and all the Reformers warned that ruling for Citizens Unitedwould deregulate the campaign finance system and basically make Ron Swanson's vision a reality. Politicians and public officials would work for Chuck E. Cheese and every other corporation, and those corporations would be allowed to buy elections. I mean, the Supreme Court was pretty radical, but would it really go that far? That's after the break.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN ROBERTS): In case 08205, Citizens United v. the FEC, Justice Kennedy has the opinion of the court.

DAVID: On January 21, 2010, just over four months after the second round of arguments, the decision in Citizens United came down this time. It wasn't Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. It was the old Sacramento Swamp Thing, former lobbyist and influence peddler Anthony Kennedy in announcing the decision to the public. Kennedy first laid out why the majority had decided to go big. He identified the precedents that were relevant to the case, like the court's ruling a few years prior, that had held up the McCain Feingold campaign finance law. And then, he said, we conclude that those precedents now must be reexamined. The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for simply engaging in political speech.

DAVID: The precedents the court's majority was now dismantling, according to Kennedy, would

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (ANTHONY KENNEDY): —allow the government to ban corporations from expressing political views through any media, including media beyond those presented here and in this case, such as by printing books, political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy. And this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.

DAVID:This is the radical corporations are people concept on steroids, and the opinion was directly built from that Belotti ruling, first authored by Kennedy's immediate predecessor, Lewis Powell, even more radical, Anthony Kennedy, who spent his early years as a lobbyist doling out campaign cash to sway legislators. That same Anthony Kennedy was now also insisting that money in politics was only corrupting when there was an explicit quid pro quo, but all the other things that Anthony Kennedy himself had helped his Sacramento lobbying clients use money to buy stuff like access and influence that stuff was apparently not corrupting. That sounds like an exaggeration, but in his written opinion, Kennedy asserted that campaign donors, quote, may have influence over or access to elected officials, but that did not quote mean that these officials are corrupt. And then Kennedy wrote something so crazy that — hold on, hold on. Can I get a special effect on my voice for this so that it sounds extra evil? Okay, there we go.

Kennedy said, quote, independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. I mean, think about how insane that is. Anthony Kennedy non ironically, wrote a ruling with the force of law that essentially declares that when a corporation spends $50 million blanketing your state to help one candidate win a US Senate election, there's no corruption or even appearance of corruption when that candidate then does legislative favors for that corporation. Justice Stevens wrote the dissent on behalf of the liberals. It may not have been Souter's barn burner, but it was pretty close. It was 90 pages long and probably bolstered by the fact that Stevens was 90 years old and also nearly ready to retire.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN PAUL STEVENS): As one of the joint authors of the opinion in McConnell, I must emphatically disagree with today's law changing decision…

DAVID: Stevens’ dissent made the point that up until O'Connor and Rehnquist were replaced by Roberts and Alito, the court had upheld at least some restrictions on corporate spending in elections.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN PAUL STEVENS): The Court has the point exactly backwards. At the founding Americans took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. It is doubtful that the framers believed the freedom of speech would extend to corporations who cannot themselves engage in speech. And is even more doubtful that when they ratified the First Amendment, they thought they were laying down a principle that could be used to insulate corporations from even modest restrictions on electioneering expenditures.

DAVID: After speaking for 20 minutes, twice as long as Kennedy had, Stevens had his mic drop moment.

ARCHIVAL SUPREME COURT AUDIO (JOHN PAUL STEVENS): While American democracy is still imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a shortage of corporate money in politics.

DAVID: Unsurprisingly, when the ruling came down, David Bossie of Citizens Unitedwas giddy.

ARCHIVAL NEWS FOOTAGE (DAVID BOSSIE):This is a monumental day for Citizens United, and more importantly, for the First Amendment and the fundamental rights of people to participate in the political process and the marketplace of ideas, whether you're an individual, whether you're a corporation or a union, it doesn't matter. You can now participate fully and freely in the election process.

DAVID:Here is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse again.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE:My recollection, I was on the Senate floor and came back to read the decision.

DAVID: He said the decision was painful to read.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: I live in the immediate political world, and I was watching the Supreme Court buy into a notion about that political world that I knew to be false. They have applied a conceptual paradigm over politics that is complete and utter nonsense.

DAVID:While much of the country reacted to the decision with surprise and anger, White House says that conservative must have had an inkling that this was coming, because right after the decision came down, conservative and business interest groups immediately filed papers to create scores of unregulated dark money groups that could exploit the ruling.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE:The fact that they had this whole 501(c)(4) apparatus ready to go sort of proved that this was an expected decision. In fact, you even have Virginia Thomas setting up her organization while the decision is being deliberated, so that on the day it's announced she's ready to go.

DAVID: Whitehouse is referring to Virginia Ginni Thomas, wife of justice, Clarence Thomas, just weeks before the ruling in Citizens United came down, she and Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society filed initial paperwork for a not for profit lobbying group called Liberty Central, a group designed to take advantage of the Citizens Unitedruling Liberty Central is America's public square. We inspire, we listen, we activate ordinary citizens to secure the blessings of liberty.

DAVID:Though it was hidden at the time, later, reporting revealed that Liberty Central's initial $500,000 of funding came from who else the Thomas's favorite billionaire, a guy named Harlan Crow, who'd been funding lavish trips for justice, Thomas on the other side of the aisle, Democrats openly criticized the Citizens Unitedruling. Here's President Obama in his State of the Union address less than a week after the decision

ARCHIVAL SPEECH AUDIO (BARACK OBAMA): Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests including. Foreign corporations to spend without limit in our elections.

DAVID: In the video of the speech, you can see the justices stay seated and look stone-faced as much of the room stands to applaud Obama around them, and then there's Samuel Alito shaking his head and muttering, not true.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: It made me grieve for Sandra Day O'Connor, whose departure had opened the door for Alito particularly, and whose common sense and experience as somebody who had run for office, I think would have headed off Citizens Unitedhad she stayed on the court. So the whole thing was just sort of imbued with sorrow and missed chances, but the result at the end was a completely manufactured simulacrum of what the political world is like, created by the court and imposed on all of us.

DAVID:Whitehouse and John McCain tried to quickly limit the rulings effects. They asked the Supreme Court to at least prevent a lower court in Montana from now using Citizens United to gut that state's 100 year old anti corruption law the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: So at that point, I realized, Oh, my God, this is not an innocent mistake. They are actually deliberately trying to open our political world to right wing political dark money.

DAVID: In my imagination, James Bopp was celebrating back home in Indiana when he read the Citizens United ruling.....

DAVID: He was psyched. But if he doesn't sound 100% excited about the ruling, it's because he kind of wasn't sure he had gotten most of what he wanted. He had created a case that convinced the court to go huge and eviscerate campaign finance laws in a world changing ruling, four years before Citizens United, nonprofits and other non disclosing political groups had spent $0 in the 2006 election cycle. In 2010 right after the ruling, those groups accounted for 47 percent of political spending, $134 million but still, there was one part of the Citizens Unitedruling that stuck in James Bopp's craw.

JAMES BOPP JR.: They upheld a report, the disclosure Yeah, the disclosure report.

DAVID: Remember David Bossie originally asked Bopp to help his group circumvent the McCain Feingold law and letCitizens United air its glorified anti-Hillary campaign ad in the middle of the election. But Bossie also told Bopp he wanted to ignore the McCain-Feingold law's disclosure provisions and hide the names of the ad's funders from the public on that disclosure issue, the court actually ruled against Citizens United.

The court ruled that laws requiring big spenders in elections and politics to be disclosed, those laws were constitutional. We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions. Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate, the resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages.

DAVID: When he heard this caveat, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse saw an opportunity to call the Supreme Court's bluff. He introduced a bill called the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections. Act, a hilariously wordy attempt to get a pithy acronym the DISCLOSE Act.

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE:The DISCLOSE Act was originally designed to require that you trace back to the actual source of political contributions for any contribution to a political campaign, or a PAC or a Super PAC, over $10,000 in a individual race. That's not a whole lot of people, but at that level, you really are buying influence. And so I think it's important for voters to understand what's going on in their political world around them.

DAVID: Democrats rallied behind the DISCLOSE Act right away, while Republicans like Mitch McConnell contorted themselves to swat it down.

DEC --- 2007

3 JUDGE COMPLAINT HILLARY THE MOVIE FOR BOSSIE

citizens_united_complaint

SMAPLE ADS

Questions” :30 [Image(s) of HRC on Screen] Who is Hillary Clinton? [JEFF GERTH Speaking & Visual] [S]he’s continually trying to redefine herself and figure out who she is . . . [ANN COULTER Speaking & Visual] [A]t least with Bill Clinton he was just good time Charlie. Hillary’s got an agenda . . . [DICK MORRIS Speaking & Visual] Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist . . . If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton . . . wait ’til you see the movie. [Film Title Card] [Visual Only] Hillary: The Movie. In theaters [on DVD] January 2007. [Visual Only] www.hillarythemovie.com

---

related/ haRlan crow scotus

Michael Bopp is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. He is Chair of the Public Policy Practice Group and a member of the Firm’s White Collar Defense and Investigations and Crisis Management Practice Groups, where he chairs the firm’s Congressional Investigations Subgroup. He also chairs the firm’s Financial Markets Crisis Group, a multi-disciplinary group formed to address client concerns stemming from the credit and capital markets crisis. Mr. Bopp’s practice focuses on congressional, internal corporate, and other government investigations, public policy consulting in a variety of fields, and managing and responding to major crises involving multiple government agencies and branches.

From 2006-2008, Mr. Bopp served as Associate Director of OMBand was responsible for overseeing budgets and coordinating regulatory, legislative, and other policy for approximately $150 billion worth of spending for various government agencies, including the Departments of Treasury, Homeland Security, Transportation, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Commerce, the General Services Administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

From 2003 to 2006, he served as Staff Director and Chief Counsel of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, one of the Senate's largest committees and most expansive in terms of jurisdiction. He oversaw more than 100 hearings, led numerous investigations and was a primary drafter of key legislation, including the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, the most significant reform of the intelligence community in more than 50 years, and 2006 legislation strengthening port security and overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He also directed a 50-person investigation of the failure of preparations and response to Hurricane Katrina. The investigation included 22 hearings, 325 witnesses, more than 800,000 pages of documents and an 800 page report.

Mr. Bopp served as Legislative Director and General Counsel to Senator Susan Collins of Maine from 1999 to 2003. He was Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1998 to 1999, where he investigated alleged improper activities undertaken by Teamsters' officials. Before that, he worked on the Congressional investigation of campaign finance abuses as senior investigative counsel to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and as counsel for the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. He also previously served as counsel on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. Bopp served as outside general counsel to the campaign to re-elect Senator Susan Collins.

Mr. Bopp received his law degree cum laude in 1992 from Harvard Law School where he was Articles Editor on the Journal of Law and Public Policy. He graduated magna cum laude, with honors, in public policy from Brown University in 1987.

---

Will Supreme Court Reconsider Citizens United? Two Justices Hope So##

Last Friday night at the close of business, she wrote a statement in which she was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting that the controversial Citizens United case should be revisited.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg knows an opportunity when she sees one.

Last Friday night at the close of business, she wrote a statement in which she was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer suggesting that the controversial Citizens United case should be revisited.

Citizens United held that the government cannot ban campaign spending by corporations in elections.

Ginsburg had voted against Citizens United in 2010, and in Friday's statement she was signaling that a new case might give the court the opportunity to look at Citizens United again.

The statement did not come out of the blue.

Last December the Montana Supreme Court issued an opinion that appears to directly contradict Citizens United, upholding a Montana law that prohibits campaign expenditures by corporations. Opponents of the decision asked the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington to step in and block the Montana decision.

"If Montana is allowed to flout this court's holdings in Citizen's United in such a willful and transparent fashion, respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and this court will be eroded," wrote James Bopp, a lawyer for plaintiffs challenging the Montana ruling.

The Supreme Court did step in at 6 p.m. on the eve of a three-day weekend to put a temporary hold on the Montana Supreme Court's ruling. Ginsburg agreed with the decision. "Because lower courts are bound to follow this court's decisions," the stay was necessary, she said.

But then she went further.

Ginsburg and Breyer (another Citizens United dissenter) said in a statement attached to the court's order: "Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since this court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC makes it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'"

She quoted a key part of the Citizens United decision.

Ginsburg, of course, recognizes that the five justices who ruled in favor of Citizens United still sit on the bench.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21,who is a fierce critic of Citizens United, explains her strategy.

"If the court takes this case, it will create the opportunity on the highest legal stage to present a compelling case to the Supreme Court that it was dead wrong in the Citizens United decision. That may not convince the five justices who decided the case to change their opinion, but it will be part of building the case that will ultimately prevail that Citizens United was wrongly decided and must be reversed."

Ginsburg references the current state of affairs in elections. She says, "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance " the Court should have the opportunity to explore whether Citizens United "should continue to hold sway."

Even though the Supreme Court granted the temporary stay, it does not mean that the court will automatically take up the case and hold hearings. It could "summarily reverse" and send the case away without merit briefs or arguments.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of the influential ScotusBlog, says that the court could summarily reverse a decision with only five votes, but a different "rule applies when four justices are willing to vote for plenary review - i.e., the "four votes to grant" rule takes precedence over the "five votes can summarily reverse" rule.

While the majority of the Montana Supreme Court distinguished its case from Citizens United by saying that the Montana case "concerns Montana law, Montana elections and it arises from Montana history" Justice James C. Nelson dissented.

Nelson said that while he "thoroughly" disagrees with Citizen's United, "the fact remains that the Supreme Court has spoken."

"Like it or not, Citizens United is the law of the land as regards corporate political speech. There is no 'Montana exception," he said.

"The Supreme Court could not have been more clear in Citizens United v. FEC: Corporations have broad rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to engage in political speech, and corporations cannot be prohibited from using general Treasury funds for this purpose based on antidistortion, anticorruption or shareholder-protection interests," Nelson wrote.

Two years after the Citizens United case, those on opposing sides seemed to be getting even further apart when it came to the issue of campaign finance. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg is laying down a marker.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/marjorie-taylor-greene-2657198899/

Who is James Bopp Jr., the lawyer defending Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Timothy Evans and Raw Story April 22, 2022

James Bopp, Jr., the lawyer representing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in today's hearing about whether she should be disqualified from running for reelection because of her actions regarding the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection, may not be a household name to most but he previously has had a profound impact on American politics.

That's because Bopp was the lead attorney who argued before a federal three-judge panel in 2008 that the conservative non-profit Citizens United should be able to air "Hillary: The Movie" on television during the Democratic primary.

Two years after the lower court rejected that petition, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling and adopted many of Bopp's arguments, reversing 100 years of campaign-finance precedents and paved the way for virtually unlimited corporate campaign contributions.

As reported by Mother Jones, Bopp has made a career of trying to dismantle laws that limit high-dollar political contributions.

"Even before Citizens United," Mother Jones writes, "he’d won a Supreme Court ruling striking down big chunks of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. He was instrumental in Bush v. Gore, and he successfully beat back a massive lawsuit from the FEC alleging that the Christian Coalition had illegally campaigned on behalf of candidates including Oliver North, Jesse Helms, and Newt Gingrich. And now he’s pursuing dozens of other cases that, if successful, could eliminate caps on political contributions, allow campaigns to hide their donors from public view, and kill public-financing laws across the nation."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Marjorie Taylor Greene melts down after judge allows constitutional ... ›

Marjorie Taylor Greene reportedly isn't thrilled about the media ... ›

Madison Cawthorn retains high-powered GOP attorney for case ... ›

A Bid To Disqualify Right-Wing Reps

Free Speech for People has made no secret of the fact that it plans on challenging the eligibility of other members of Congress.

But North Carolina law is especially useful for challengers of Cawthorn’s eligibility: It puts the burden on candidates to demonstrate, “by a preponderance of the evidence of the record as a whole that he or she is qualified to be a candidate for the office.” (For now, the challenge to Cawthorn’s eligibility has been delayed by the legal fight over redistricting in the state.)

The challengers noted that Cawthorn was reportedly in touch with event planners behind the Jan. 6 White House rally, which preceded the attack on Congress. He also encouraged attendees at one December 2020 speech to “lightly threaten” their congressional representatives. Two days before the Capitol attack, he tweeted that the fate of the country hinged “on the actions of a solitary few.”

“Get ready, the fate of a nation rests on our shoulders, yours and mine,” Cawthorn wrote. “Let’s show Washington that our backbones are made of steel and titanium. It’s time to fight.”

On Jan. 6 itself, Cawthorn spoke to the crowd at the White House event that preceded the riot.

“The Democrats, with all the fraud they have done this election, the Republicans, hiding and not fighting, they are trying to silence your voice,” he said, after observing that “this crowd has some fight.”

After the attack began, but before insurrectionists breached the Capitol building itself, Cawthorn tweeted, “I’m fighting a battle for our Constitution on the house floor with other patriots. The battle is on the house floor, not in the streets of D.C.”

Insurrectionist Under Law?

Bopp argued to TPM that these actions did not amount to partaking in an insurrection. The 14th Amendment’s use of “engaged” to define participation in an insurrection did not apply here, he said.

He accused Cawthorn’s challengers of “weaponizing” what occurred on Jan. 6 “to subvert our democracy by preventing qualified people from running for office.”

“It wasn’t an insurrection, it wasn’t a rebellion by any sensible definition of those words, and Cawthorn was on the floor of Congress when it occurred doing his official duties, so he wasn’t ‘engaged’ in any of it,” he said.

The challenge may be a bit of a longshot, as several legal observers have acknowledged, but it could also force Cawthorn to speak more about what role he had, if any, in organizing some part of the Jan. 6 event schedule.

“If it turns out that there are proper procedures lawfully being employed that result in a deposition, he’ll deal with that when that occurs,” Bopp said. But, he added, “I seriously doubt that we’ll get to that point.”

---

duck 2 22

omfg

Cawthorn's attorney responds to efforts to bar lawmaker from office

MSN|3 days ago

Cawthorn's attorney James Bopp Jr. joins New Day to discuss. Like us on Facebook to see similar stories Please give an overall site rating:

Madison Cawthorn has constitutional right to run for office, attorney says

WLOS Asheville/Greenville on MSN.com|4 days ago

REP. MADISON CAWTHORN SUES NC TO STOP CHALLENGE TO CANDIDACY FOR REELECTION But his attorney James Bopp Jr. said it is a matter of free speech. "It's in the First Amendment. The freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment. It protects the ...

Madison Cawthorn Retains High-Powered GOP Attorney for Case Seeking to Disqualify Him as an Insurrectionist

The New Civil Rights Movement|20 days ago

Bopp, known as being one of the attorneys who won the democracy-damning Citizens United case at the Supreme Court, flooding American politics with millions (billions?) in dark money. He's also been a vice-chair of the RNC, and is recognized as a top ...

GOP Power Lawyer: Congress Said Insurrection Is Cool In 1872

Talking Points Memo|16 days ago

James Bopp Jr., a storied right-wing power lawyer, argues that Congress already issued a blanket amnesty to all insurrectionists back in 1872. So Madison is good to go in terms of serving in Congress.

Madison Cawthorn Lawyer Cites Confederate Amnesty Act To Defend Rep's Job

Talking Points Memo|18 days ago

The argument from Cawthorn lawyer James Bopp Jr. came in response to a legal effort to have Cawthorn declared ineligible for office because he allegedly "encouraged, and upon reasonable ...

Ex-justice's Wisconsin election probe drags as critics scoff

Mankato Free Press|7 days ago

Gableman did not respond to messages seeking comment. His attorney, James Bopp, called him "very conscientious" and "very committed to following the law as a justice, as a person, as a special counsel." "He considers it a very important ...

---

https://www.alternet.org/2020/11/trump-voter-fraud-lawsuit

...There's little sign the newest (as of this writing) pro-Trump suit will have better prospects. On Thursday, three Wisconsin voters, backed by a controversial Texas conservative group called True the Vote, filed suit, asking a federal judge to block officials from certifying votes in three counties that favored Biden over Trump. (The group has filed similar lawsuits in Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania.) According to the lawsuit, the “Plaintiffs possess advanced technical capability to conduct statistical analyses" and want officials to give them a range of voting data to analyze. But when ProPublica interviewed James Bopp, an Indiana-based attorney representing the plaintiffs, he offered an account at odds with the document he filed. “None of the plaintiffs have the credentials to, or the resources to, conduct a very sophisticated data analytics operation," he said. Bopp is hoping True the Vote, which is not a party to the suit, will be allowed to conduct the analysis.

Even if the Trump campaign were to turn its legal luck around, the quantities of votes questioned by most of the postelection lawsuits fall far short of the numbers needed to change the outcome of the election.The campaign has failed to find evidence of the kind of widespread irregularities that it would need to turn up in at least three states to have a chance to push Biden's presumptive 306 electoral votes below the 270 threshold and throw the election to Trump. Biden's margins in the states key to his victory range from nearly 148,000 in Michigan, as noted, to 59,000 (and counting) in Pennsylvania and 35,000 in Nevada, on down to 11,000 in Arizona, a figure that may tighten but is expected to allow Biden to carry the state.

...

---

Anita Milanovich was a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention from Montana. All 27 delegates from Montana were bound by state party rules to support Donald Trump at the convention.[2] As of July 13, 2016, Trump had approximately 1,542 delegates. The winner of the Republican nomination needed the support of 1,237 delegates. Trump formally won the nomination on July 19, 2016.

Career

Anita Milanovich is an attorney with the legal offices of The Bopp Law Firm, which is led by James Bopp Jr. Milanovich operates out of the firm's Montana satellite office. She specializes in first amendment law, campaign finance law, election law, constitutional law, civil litigation, and appellate practice.[3][1] She began working with the firm in 2004 when she graduated law school.[1]

2016 Republican National Convention

---

i'm confused:

https://mtstandard.com/opinion/editorial/montana-view-campaign-spending-limits-survive/

no lnx

Montana view: Campaign spending limits survive

Jan 17, 2019

Eight years of litigation to abolish Montana’s campaign contribution limits ended Monday with two words from the U.S. Supreme Court: certiorari denied.

Lair v. Mangan was among dozens of cases that the nation’s highest court declined to review in an order issued Monday.

The high court order allows the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling to stand. The court upheld Montanans’ authority to limit how much money a contributor may donate to a candidate for public office.

Doug Lair was one of three individuals, who along with American Tradition Partnership, Montana Right to Life Association PAC, Sweet Grass Council for Community Integrity, Lake County Republican Central Committee, Beaverhead Republican Central Committee, Jake Oil LLC, JL Oil LLC and Champion Painting Inc., filed a lawsuit in September 2011 in U.S. District Court in Billings.

The lawsuit was one of a series involving American Tradition Partnership (originally named Western Tradition Partnership) that sought to overturn Montana campaign laws, including the state’s century-old voter-approved ban on corporate campaign contributions and newer statutes requiring truth in political advertising among other things.

ATP and its associates succeeded in getting most of the campaign laws thrown out. A week before voting started in the 2012 Montana General Election, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell ruled in favor of ATP and Lair, nullifying Montana contribution limits, too.

The Republican Governors Association quickly donated $500,000 to the campaign of Rick Hill, the GOP nominee for governor. Lovell’s decision was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the Montana campaign limits pending appeal, so the limits were off for just six days.

The Hill campaign asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and allow unlimited donations pending appeal, which the high court declined to do. Eventually, the circuit court upheld the donation limits’ constitutionality and the law's foes appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

What this long legal battle means is that Montana must not take our campaign finance laws for granted. Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan, who has the duty of enforcing those laws, needs adequate staffing and resources to fulfill his vital watchdog role.

The flurry of court action in the 2012 General Election erased any doubt that even greater sums of cash would flood into our elections if we had no limits.

“Montana’s limits leave candidates with the ability to conduct an effective campaign for office,”Commissioner of Political Practice’s Chief Legal Counsel Jaime MacNaughtonsaid in a news release Monday. “Our limits allow individuals to associate with the candidate of their choice through their own speech, volunteering, discussing their merits with their neighbors, and through making their voice heard at the ballot box. Montana secured a victory today for transparency and accountability in our government and elected officials.”

The Montana Attorney General’s Office successfully defended the state contribution law, starting when Democrat Steve Bullock was attorney general and concluding under the leadership of Republican Tim Fox.

"I've never heard any Montanan say we need more money in politics and I'm glad to see the Supreme Court for once agrees," Bullock said Monday. Montanans troubled by recent growth in campaign spending across the political spectrum will agree with the governor.

MONTANA VIEW ICON

The Billings Gazette

---

2016

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/supreme-court-scotus-citizens-united-money-campaigns-political-new-fec-next-law-suit-213980#ixzz4CXao9yT2

Most Americans last heard from conservative lawyer Jim Bopp six years ago when he crafted a case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that won the Supreme Court’s favor and helped uncork a torrent of cash—some of it secret—that continues pouring into elections.

But Bopp is back. The Terre Haute, Indiana-based attorney, who was literally laughed at by a judge when he made his first arguments in Citizens United, is now the lead lawyer in the most prominent of a series of lawsuits attempting to further destroy political contribution limits.

The case, brought by the Republican Party of Louisiana, addresses restrictions on how state and local political parties use “soft money” contributions to influence ...Bopp’s clients argue that if independent outside groups such as super PACs are permitted to raise and spend unlimited amounts of such money, there’s no reason why state political parties, acting independently of federal candidates, should be treated differently “They want to compete, and they want to do this activity without the severe restrictions that they suffer under,” said Bopp.

Bopp says he won’t rest until there are as few election rules as possible since he believes that too many rules lead to more opportunities to game the political system. “When you say, ‘Congress shall make no law,’ I know that’s kind of a shocking statement, but it’s a pretty definitive statement,” he said, referring to the First Amendment and its application to political speech. “There shouldn’t be any laws as opposed to thousands of pages of laws and regulations that you have now in the federal system.”

The stakes are high. If the Republican Party of Louisiana wins the case, “in effect, the ‘soft money’ world of the late ‘90s and 2002 would be reestablished,” purging some of the last remnants of McCain-Feingold and other restraints on donations, said Richard Briffault deputy executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, which favors campaign contribution limits, compares the deregulatory approach of people like Bopp who are fighting against limits to peeling an onion. “First it was the aggregate limits, which was sort of like the outermost protection. Now they’re going for the party limits, which again seems one degree removed from a direct contribution for the candidate,” she said. “I assume if they were successful here, they would go for the rest.” Multiple campaign finance lawyers point to the Louisiana case as one of the most likely of a small number of campaign finance cases now wending their way through the legal system to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and several others may land there as well. These still-obscure challenges to remaining campaign finance laws have the potential to again reshape the way money influences politics. They could further erode contribution limits or chip away at state laws aimed at restricting money’s influence on state-level elections.

To be sure, there are many variables that will shape the outcomes. And lawyers on all sides of these cases agree U.S. Supreme Court rulings are notoriously tricky to forecast, especially with the court down to eight members following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year.

Nevertheless, those in favor of more deregulation of campaign finance, like Bopp, are looking to extend the reasoning laid out in decisions such as Citizens United and 2014’s McCutcheon v. FEC, which overturned aggregate campaign finance limits.

The practical effect of the U.S. Supreme Court siding with the Louisiana state Republican Party would be reopening the door to what was known in the 1990s as “soft money,” allowing what in many states would be practically unlimited contributions to state parties.

The case would “substantially” reduce the difference between the amounts of money independent groups such as super PACs could accept and the amounts state parties could accept, Bopp said.

Two other cases could also be big, if they don’t first fizzle out: a federal district court ruling striking down Montana’s contribution limits, also a Bopp case, and a messy, politicized case out of Wisconsin that raises questions about coordination between candidates and independent groups, among other legal issues.

There’s also a case seeking to overturn a Delaware law that requires groups spending more than $500 per election cycle on ads referring to specific candidates to disclose their donors.

Parties in both the Wisconsin and Delaware cases have filed certiorari petitions asking the Supreme Court to take the cases. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled.

***

The most prominent cases involve objectionsto contribution limits, and they seem to follow a trail laid down by Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2014 McCutcheon case when he appeared to invite, or at least open the door to, additional challenges to contribution limits. Bopp and his ideological allies are taking Roberts’ hint, argues Rick Hasen, a law and political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, who has written about both Roberts’ wording and the Louisiana Republican Party case.

McCutcheonwas, in some ways, a narrow case concerning only the so-called aggregate contribution limits, the total amount contributors can give to all federal candidates in a single election cycle.

The law previously capped the total amount an individual could donate to federal candidates at $48,600 per election cycle plus $74,600 to parties and political action committees. A contributor who wanted to give the maximum contribution—then $2,600—to a large number of federal candidates, such that his total giving would exceed the cap, filed suit.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the aggregate limit, although it left limits on contributions to individual candidates and to parties in place.

But in McCutcheon, Roberts reinforced a limited definition of political corruption, defining it very much like bribery. To prove corruption, one must essentially prove a quid pro quo—that money led to some specific act of corruption. The tight definition of corruption is important, because preventing corruption—or the appearance of corruption—is the only legitimate reason the court has said justifies contribution limits.

If the justification underpinning campaign contribution limits rests on broader definitions of corruption—for instance, limiting the access to politicians that can accrue to big contributors—Roberts seemingly opened the door to striking down the limits as unjustified restrictions.

“It’s been kind of a time bomb,” Hasen says of the language in the McCutcheonopinion.

Bopp hopes to see the bomb detonate, describing more campaign finance deregulation as “definitely desirable.”

***

All this goes back to the big debate over “soft money” that has raged for decades. “Soft money” was the term given to unlimited contributions made by corporations, individuals and labor unions to national political parties. The funds were often used to pay for “issue” ads—commercials that avoided directly calling for the election or defeat of a particular candidate but otherwise looked and sounded very much like campaign ads.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as McCain-Feingold, after its chief Senate sponsors, banned soft money in federal elections, eliminating unrestricted contributions to national political parties and restricting state parties to funding what the law termed “federal election activities” with federal funds, or funds raised subject to specific sets of restrictions and requirements.

The latter restrictions on state and local parties are the ones the Louisiana Republican Party’s lawsuit seeks to knock down.

“Some would argue that in the end, the money is going to get there one way or the other, and the fact that the money is in parties is no worse and potentially better,” said Columbia Law School’s Briffault. “On the other hand, it’s one more reaffirmation of the idea that nominal independence means freedom from restriction.”

Thanks to judicial review provisions in the law that set the contribution limits, Bopp was able to request a hearing before a three-judge panel in federal district court. The panel’s decision can be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some campaign finance experts suggest Scalia’s death worsened odds that the Republican Party of Louisiana will win its case after the three-judge panel rules and the inevitable appeal is filed. The high court may be more likely to simply uphold the lower court, for example. Or, there may be a greater likelihood of a tied verdict given the even number of justices.

Bopp, who has long been active in the Republican Party, strongly contests the likelihood of a stalemate on the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing precedent is on his side.

“Unless you’re prepared to say … ‘parties can’t do independent spending,’ then the logic is irresistible,” he said, adding that “political parties are highly regulated, more regulated than many of the other political actors in the process, and frankly that, in my view, has the world upside down.”

Another campaign contribution case of Bopp’s, a long-running challenge to Montana’s limits on contributions to state candidates by a group of political parties and individuals, has also received a rush of attention.

Bopp says that case, as well as other challenges to contribution limits he is working on, have to do with applying the corruption definition in McCutcheon to campaign contribution limits.

A federal district court struck down Montana’s limits as too low to allow candidates to conduct effective political campaigns. An appeals court overturned the decision and sent the case back, ordering the court to reassess it.

The district court again struck down the contribution limits, more broadly finding the limits weren’t justified because the state failed to present compelling evidence of quid pro quo corruption, required to justify the limits. The case is again under appeal, and experts say it could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

What started off as a case about whether contribution limits were too low “suddenly became about the constitutionality of contribution limits altogether, or what kind of incredibly strong legislative record you would need in order to have any kind of contribution limits,” said the Campaign Legal Center’s Malloy, whose organization has taken part in the case as a “friend of the court.”

When asked by the Center for Public Integrity, campaign finance lawyers were more tentative when naming other cases that could bring sweeping change, and forecasting which cases have the potential to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and upend existing law is a dicey game.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule on two certiorari petitions asking it to hear a pair of closely watched cases.

One, Delaware Strong Families v. Denn, involves a Delaware law that requires groups to reveal their donors’ identities if they spend $500 or more in a single election cycle on advertising that refers to specific candidates. The disclosure requirements apply even if the ads don’t explicitly urge people to vote for or against a specific candidate.

Delaware Strong Families, a nonprofit organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code as a charity, describes its mission as “to rebuild a culture of marriage, family, and freedom and raise up the next generation of leaders.” Charities cannot engage in activity aimed at influencing elections. The group publishes what it describes as a nonpartisan voter guide, and argues that the law is an unfair burden and could chill free speech.

In support of the law, the state argued it has a compelling interest in ensuring there is an informed electorate. Since Delaware is small, the state also contends it’s reasonable for a low-dollar threshold to trigger disclosure requirements.

The state won in the 3rd Circuit last year. The Center for Competitive Politics, which is representing Delaware Strong Families, has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has yet to say whether it will agree to hear the case.

“The Delaware law is pretty radical, and I think if the court accepted it, I think we’d win. I think we’d see a lot of support across the ideological spectrum for limiting the reach or striking down the Delaware law,” predicted David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which favors less regulation of campaign finance. “Good grief, they’re regulating nonpartisan voter guides.”

But Malloy, whose organization is representing Delaware in defense of the law, said overturning the law “would act sort of as a check against state innovation in the disclosure area, where states are sort of leading the charge because Congress has been ... in a quagmire.”

Another potential game changer is the so-called “John Doe” case out of Wisconsin, over which the U.S. Supreme Court also has yet to act.

The politically charged case is an appeal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling ending an investigation into whether Republican Gov. Scott Walker coordinated with independent outside groups working to support him during his recall election in 2011 and 2012.

Prosecutors are appealing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision, arguing it essentially guts limits on Wisconsin candidates coordinating with outside groups and goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court has so far permitted. Prosecutors also argue that three of the judges should have recused themselves because some of the independent groups involved in the investigation had supported their candidacies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court accepts the case, it could be a vehicle for justices to clarify the murky legal area of coordination between candidates and independent groups. It may also address whether the judges should have recused themselves.

“Obviously, if the court granted [certiorari] on that, that would immediately become a blockbuster,” said Daniel Weiner, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for campaign finance reform, though he and other lawyers hastened to say they believe the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to grant review.

“If the court were to adopt the interpretation of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that would be the end of coordination law,” leaving only easily evaded restrictions on coordinating on communications that expressly urge voting for or against a candidate and nothing else, Weiner said.

Bopp, unsurprisingly, disagrees. He calls the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision well-founded.

“You’ve got to limit the idea of contribution to a candidate by coordinated spending to something that actually relates to an election, and issue advocacy isn’t it,” he said.

Everything comes down to which cases the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to accept, and how broadly the justices choose to rule—choices surrounded by uncertainty. It may seem obvious, but a lot also depends on when a new justice is appointed to fill the seat left vacant by Scalia’s death—and the president, be it Barack Obama, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, whose nominee is confirmed.

Bopp crafts his cases—such as the Louisiana case—to go the distance, with an eye to, in his words, having “a very plausible way to win the case which fits under existing law.”

Don’t underestimate him. Citizens Unitedwas given such low odds of success, a district court judge laughed openly in court when Bopp made his argument that an anti-Hillary Clinton video was really just like a 60 Minutessegment and should be treated as such.

But he got the last laugh—and may again.

2x? see below

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/brains-behind-citizens-united/

no linx map

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2018/05/09/christian-right-groups-wage-crusade-capture-courts/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=5c5ed87e-0075-4ed8-aad0-19dc7ba0c82b

big-budget religious-right organizations are waging a sustained crusade to advance their controversial social agenda by rigging the rules in state courts, according to a new report released by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD).

Ten of the largest groups with a combined annual budget of more than $220 million have spent millions over the past decade to mount a relentless attack on traditional safeguards designed to insulate judges from politics, including merit selection, campaign finance laws, and judicial codes of conduct that limit what judges can say about legal issues likely to come before their courts.

The Christian right groups oppose same-sex marriage and adoption rights, promote gay conversion therapy, oppose reproductive rights, and fight for broad religious exemptions. Some have been classified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Emboldened by the successful ousting of three state Supreme Court justices in Iowa in 2010, as retaliation for the Court’s unanimous decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage, those conservative religious groups have used legal challenges, legislation, and dark-money election spending in more than a dozen states to politicize state courts.

Religious Right Assaults on Judicial Indipendence

“All courts are under attack by conservative warriors,” said Arn Pearson, CMD’s executive director and the report’s author. “But since Iowa, those most at risk are in the states.”

“The organized Christian right thinks judges should be accountable to ‘values’ voters, and does not believe in the separation of church and state,” Pearson said.

While the religious right has not been able to replicate its Iowa rout, it has successfully teamed up with corporate and partisan players to abolish merit selection in Tennessee, win a conservative majority on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, and mount a major 2016 challenge against four Kansas Supreme Court justices based on their rulings on abortion, the death penalty, and school funding.

Those efforts have been bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations–including nonprofits–to pour money into judicial elections for the first time in more than a century.

“The influence of big money–already pervasive in federal and state elections–increasingly casts a shadow over how state judges handle controversial cases concerning equal marriage or privacy rights,” Pearson said. “Million-dollar-plus campaigns against sitting judges have become the new normal and can intimidate judges, who are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law, even when unsuccessful.”

Outside spending on state supreme court elections has more than tripled since 2010, reaching a record $28 million in the 2015-16 judicial elections.

Outside Spending in Supreme Court

Citizens United and many of the state attacks on judicial independence have been masterminded by James Bopp, an Indiana attorney and GOP insider who has represented groups like Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, National Organization for Marriage, and National Right to Life.

Focus on the Family and its advocacy partner, the Family Policy Alliance, have been major players in that effort. The groups spent a combined $93 million in 2016 and funneled nearly $7 million to a network of local partners in 38 states between 2012 and 2015.

Focus on the Family recently declared itself a church and announced that it will no longer file informational tax returns with the IRS.

“The religious right wants to win ‘Christ-centered’ courts that reflect their extreme religious views, and they will continue to wage a series of small battles until they get there,” Pearson said. “Ensuring that courts will protect the constitutional and civil rights of all Americans, regardless of their religious views, will take an equal commitment from supporters of an independent judiciary.”

Read the report: Conquering the Courts

---

mayer dk $:

9 Money is speech : the long road to "Citizens United" ;

SpeechNow, but $ in campaign should still be public survived;

100 yrs of law going back to robber baron gone; eg mark Hanna st’d oil → teddy Tillman Act 1907 ban corp $ to fed pols and PACS.

Justice Stevens dissent, radical departure from 1st amendment settled law 229

Problems in US but no one thought it was lack of corp $.

DeVos; 11b$ gross 2011. Indep biz owners, not employees as tax dodge 230 (also no SS or benefits). FTC problems led to Pres ford visit, 2 staffers jumped ship; Invisible hands book; “quasi-religious sociopolitical org” 231 free mkt; RNC chair and jay van andel head of CoC; busted cda tax; devos canned from rnc (said 1982 recession a cleansing process”

RWI, ISI, CNP (w Friess)

Bought Orlando magic

Amway expand into china.

Dick retired to do pol, nit lost voucher michigan 2m$. 35 mil to be state sen but lost;

McC sez if we can stop camp finance reform, we can control congress? 20 years 235

BOPP madison ctr: all $ goes to bopp firm;

Betsy: soft $ is just hard$ they have not Big bro found a way to control 235

Soros

Bopp 10 yr plan to get rid of campaign fin law 236; uses lang of left to ju jitsu.

Spechnow not a real org, invented to challenge law; origin with wm o’keefe 237

Liar Bradley Smith from ctr compet pol; Inst for Justice (koch) [fred yung outsourced jobs]; Spnow superpac went after Feingold, who told outside groups not to rally to him, he lost. 238

CU ~ BO: alito” not true”

[elections now perpetual?] all negative, drives down faith [and partic?] in gov’t 239.

James Bopp, Jr. holds a B.A. from Indiana University (1970), and received a J.D. from the University of Florida in 1973. He has been a part of Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, in Terre Haute, Indiana. He was Of Counsel for Webster, Chamberlain & Bean of Washington D.C.. He was the General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an organization that generally opposes campaign finance reform. He has been the Chairman of the Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group and he has been a member of the conservative Federalist Society.

capt 414

---

Next Citizens United? McCutcheon Supreme Court Case Targets Campaign Contribution Limits

...

Last year, we reported how the State Government Leadership Foundation paid for Republican redistricting consultants to draw new congressional district maps in North Carolina. The resulting gerrymander helped flip the state’s congressional delegation to Republicans.

In recent years, the foundation has also funded TV ads targeting Democrats during the 2011 Wisconsin showdown over collective bargaining rights; attacking President Obama in Virginia over his energy policy; and accusing teachers unions of “destroying our children’s future.”

The foundation also gave $1.25 million in 2011 to the Indiana Opportunity Fund, a state-level nonprofit that ran anti-union ads featuring Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels. (That group was founded by attorney Jim Bopp, who has long fought against campaign finance regulation.) pro publica

The foundation’s single-biggest early donor was the now-defunct mortgage lender Ameriquest, which gave more than $260,000. (We contacted a number of the companies on the list; they did not respond to requests for comment.) Corporate trade associations including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Edison Electric Institute, and the American Tort Reform Association also pitched in, each giving between $50,000 and $100,000.

The foundation’s affiliated organization, the Republican State Leadership Committee, focuses on winning state-level elections for the GOP and also gets corporate money, including from tobacco and insurance giants. As an explicitly political organization, the committee has to disclose its donors.

By contrast, the recent funders of the foundation, which took in $2.5 million in 2011 including a single donation of $1 million, are still secret.

The foundation applied for IRS recognition as a social welfare group in late 2003 but was initially rejected. The IRS concluded the foundation was “a partisan organization” that “operated primarily for the benefit of a select group” – the GOP. Social welfare groups, the IRS’ rejection letter noted, must promote the “general welfare of the whole community” — not a particular group.

The foundation’s lawyers from the firm Arent Fox fired back in an appeal, arguing that the foundation was not a partisan outfit.

The foundation, according to the 2005 appeal, “was created to promote public debate” about issues including pharmaceuticals, securities regulation, and asbestos litigation.

“It may be useful to describe what the SGLF is not,” the appeal says. “The SGLF:

• Is not affiliated with the Republican Party in any way;

• Does not meet with or coordinate its activities with the Republican Party;

• Does not make contributions to, or accept contributions from, the Republican Party;

• Does not participate in political campaigns, elections or publish electioneering messages on behalf of any candidate or party;

• Does not invite Representatives of the Republican Party to speak at its events, and

• Does not participate in the Republican Party platform, does not recruit or train Republican candidates, does not fundraise for Republican candidates, and does not coordinate its issue selection or policy positions with the Republican Party.

In 2007, more than three years after the foundation’s application, the IRS ultimately recognized it as a tax-exempt social welfare group.

But the group’s protestations that it has nothing to do with the GOP seems at odds with its recent activities. Besides running ads attacking Democrats, the foundation was involved in redistricting in several states to, as the foundation put it in a letter to Republican legislators, draw “legislative lines that we will have to defend in 2012 and beyond.”

Posted: 07/31/2013 7:25 am EDT | Updated: 07/31/2013 1:10 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- The next big campaign finance case to go before the Supreme Court began in February 2012 in the grand ballroom at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel during the "Ronald Reagan Banquet" at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Alabama electrical engineer and budding political donor Shaun McCutcheon broached a problem in conversation with conservative election lawyer Dan Backer, who one day earlier had led a CPAC panel on rolling back campaign finance laws in which he predicted that campaign contribution limits would soon rise.

McCutcheon had recently learned there were overall federal campaign contribution limits on what a single donor could give during a two-year election cycle. He voiced his annoyance to Backer and wondered if he could just ignore the aggregate limits -- something that a few dozen donors wound up doing, whether deliberately or inadvertently, in the 2012 election.

"He could tell I didn't like 'em, so he said we could challenge and it would go all the way to the Supreme Court," McCutcheon recalled in an interview with The Huffington Post. "I didn't really believe him."

A little more than a year later, McCutcheon, now joined by the Republican National Committee, is bringing the biggest campaign finance case before the Supreme Court since the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision. If the justices rule in their next term to toss the overall limits, it would mark the first time the Supreme Court had found a federal contribution limit unconstitutional and would open the door for even more money to flood the political system.

It would also be a major victory for counter-reformers, who have racked up a string of wins rolling back campaign finance regulation ever since Justice Samuel Alito replaced the more campaign regs-friendly Sandra Day O'Connor. And it would be a major blow to the campaign finance regime crafted in the 1970s following a string of corruption scandals culminating in the abuses revealed in the Watergate investigation.

For the 2013-2014 election cycle, Federal Election Commission rules state that a donor can give no more than $123,200 to all political committees with two sub-limits of $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to political parties and political action committees. Without these overall caps, a single donor supporting one political party could theoretically give more than $5 million in individually limited contributions to every House candidate, every Senate candidate, every state party committee, every national party committee and every leadership PAC.

The case of McCutcheon v. FEC is being managed by a team of attorneys who have made careers out of working a long game to roll back campaign finance laws, including lead counsel Jim Bopp, the first lawyer on the Citizens United case, and Backer and Stephen Hoersting. The challengers argue that the aggregate limits are an unconstitutional burden on free speech and do not serve the purpose of reducing quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof.

"This is a case about how to spend your money how you choose, and it's a very important First Amendment case about freedom of speech," McCutcheon said. "We should be able to support as many candidates as we want. There's no reason to limit the number of candidates or committees."

Supporters of stronger campaign finance oversight disagree strongly. They say that campaign contribution limits being up for debate is a sign of how successful the counter-reformers have already been and how unfriendly the current Supreme Court is to campaign finance regulation.

"The fact that they are setting their sights on even this most basic feature of campaign regulation just shows how far the conversation has shifted on campaign finance," said Brenda Wright, vice president for legal strategies at Demos and the lead author of an amicus brief opposing McCutcheon. "And it's really important for the court not to take that next step. The court really needs to put a stop to the damage that's been done to our campaign finance regulations."

In a string of amici briefs filed with the Supreme Court on July 25, campaign reform advocates argue that the elimination of the aggregate limits would open the door for candidates to solicit checks of over $1 million through joint fundraising committees and undermine the individual contribution limits by allowing donations to be shifted among an unlimited number of candidates and PACs.

"This is a not very thinly disguised first step to try to get an absolute anything-goes, no-limits regime on campaign contributions," said Charles Fried, a former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan and the author of an amicus brief submitted by Americans for Campaign Reform.

McCutcheon, however, denies that he wants to change the direct contribution limits, stating, "This is not about base limits. This is about aggregate limits."

Yet a ruling undoing overall contribution limits could, in fact, undermine the legal standing of individual contribution limits in future court challenges. University of California-Irvine election law professor Rick Hasen explained on his Election Law Blog, "It is possible in this case, for example, that the conservative five Justices ... set out a general standard for reviewing contribution limits which makes them harder to sustain against constitutional challenge."

Further, in the most radical and unlikely possibility, the court could decide that the case requires a ruling on the underlying question of the constitutionality of all contribution limits -- much as it did with independent spending in the Citizens United ruling -- and then find all such limits to be unconstitutional.

In the past, the Supreme Court has supported the overall limits as an extension of the direct contribution limits. The court in the landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision found that the overall limits "prevent evasion of the [direct] contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate, or huge contributions to the candidate's political party."

The court has also found the acceptance or solicitation of "huge contributions" by lawmakers to be a legitimate concern, creating the appearance of corruption, if not leading to actual corruption, as in the Nixon White House.

In their brief before the court, however, McCutcheon and the RNC argue that the system of contribution caps supported in Buckley and subsequent decisions has been made irrelevant by the Citizens United ruling, which opened the door to unlimited independent spending by corporations, unions and, through a lower court ruling, individuals.

The unlimited spending allowed by Citizens United does raise the question of whether overall limits -- or even individual contribution limits -- matter when a donor can simply give unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate through a super PAC or a non-disclosing nonprofit. This reasoning has been echoed in a handful of state capitals where lawmakers have passed legislation since the 2010 decision to raise contribution limits in order to help candidates remain competitive with the rising tide of independent spending.

After pondering and rejecting this argument, D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, writing for a three-judge panel in the lower court,predicted where the arguments made by McCutcheon and the RNC would be decided. "Plaintiffs raise the troubling possibility that Citizens United undermined the entire contribution limits scheme, but whether that case will ultimately spur a new evaluation of Buckley is a question for the Supreme Court, not us," she wrote.

The Supreme Court may ultimately decide to strike down or uphold the overall limits, but there is also a middle path. The court could find the overall limits to be generally constitutional, but their level to be unconstitutionally low. This would require Congress to set new caps that meet with whatever requirements the court decides are appropriate.

Oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC are scheduled for Oct. 8, with a ruling likely to arrive just in time for a potential new explosion of money in the 2014 midterms.

GOP platform:

Vice Chairman for the Republican Party since 2008.

alternet:

5. James Bopp. James Bopp is a Republican lawyer and delegate from Indiana whose client list is a who’s-who of right-wing organizations, including National Right to Life and the National Organization for Marriage, which he has represented [14] in its efforts to keep political donors secret. As legal advisor to Citizens United, Bopp has led legal attacks on campaign finance laws and played a huge role in the issue of unlimited right-wing cash flooding our elections. Bopp chaired this year’s platform subcommittee on “restoring constitutional government,” which helps explain its strong anti-campaign finance reform language.

Bopp is also an annoyingly petty partisan, having introduced [15] a resolution in the Republican National Committee in 2009 urging the Democratic Party to change its name to the “Democrat Socialist Party.” In this year’s platform committee, Bopp successfully pushed for the removal of language suggesting that residents of the District of Columbia might deserve some representation in Congress short of statehood. His sneering comments [16], and his gloating fist [17]- [17]pump [17] when the committee approved his resolution, have not won him any friends among DC residents – not that he cares. He also spoke out against a young delegate’s proposal that the party recognize civil unions, which Bopp denounced [18] as “counterfeit marriage.” In spite of all these efforts, Bopp has been at the forefront of Romney campaign platform spin, arguing [19] in the media that the platform language on abortion is not really a “no-exceptions” ban, in spite of its call for a Human Life Amendment and laws giving 14th Amendment protections to the “unborn.”

also

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/gop-plank-in-2012-platform-wants-to-leave-campaign-spending-alone/2012/08/29/c1cc2dee-f202-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

By Bill Turque, Published: August 29

The Republican Party’s 2008 platformcontained not a mention of campaign finance reform in its 68 pages. The omission was in deference to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the GOP presidential nominee and co-author of McCain-Feingold. The groundbreaking 2002 measure banned unlimited donations to parties, placed new strictures on political advertising and tried to roll back the ability of wealthy individuals to self-fund their candidacies.

Rather than tarnish their standard bearer by challenging his signature legislative achievement, the platform’s authors skirted the issue entirely.

What a difference a presidential election cycle makes. A series of court decisions striking down parts of McCain-Feingold — and a new nominee — have led to a new plank in the 2012 platform on regulation of campaign spending.

It says there should be next to none.

“We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage Americans from exercising their constitutional right to enter the political fray or limit their commitment to their ideals,” it declares on page 12. The platform calls for repeal of what remains of McCain-Feingold — mainly the ban on “soft” money contributions to parties — and either raising or abolishing donation limits. It also opposes passage of any law that would weaken the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which did away with prohibitions against corporate or union spending on elections. The platform specifically mentioned the Democrat-supported DISCLOSE Act, which would require independent groups to list the names of those donating more than $10,000. The bill died in the Senate this year. The plank also calls for no regulation of political speech on the Internet.

The enduring truism about party platforms is that every four years they are drafted, debated, voted on and forgotten. But Republican National Committee member James Bopp Jr., who drafted the campaign finance section, said it matters because it speaks to long-standing sentiment inside the party.

“I’m just glad we can reflect what the grass-roots of the party believe,” said Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who has worked for years to deregulate campaign funding. “They support the First Amendment and they support no campaign finance restrictions, by and large, ” he said.

interview: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147294511/understanding-the-impact-of-citizens-united

---

CU But even disclosure provisions have their detractors. Justice Clarence Thomas, while concurring with the overall ruling in Citizens United, wrote in his opinion that the Court did not go far enough, and that the "disclosure, disclaimer, and reporting requirements" in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) are also unconstitutional. He worries about the threat of retaliation from angry citizens or lawmakers. According to Justice Thomas, by forcing the funders to submit themselves to possible retaliation, mandatory disclosure laws chill free speech.

Though courts have generally been friendlier to disclosure requirements than outright bans, the issue may come before the Supreme Court again. Attorney James Bopp, Jr., a primary architect of the Citizens United case, whose stated goal is to strip away every type of regulation on political spending, has set his sites next on disclosure, telling THE NEW YORK TIMES, "Groups have to be relieved of reporting their donors if lifting the prohibition on their political speech is going to have any meaning." You can read more about James Bopp, Jr. and his views here.

Moyers http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02192010/citizensunited.html

---

http://www**.sourcewatch**.org/index.php?title=James_Bopp,_Jr.

James Bopp, Jr. is a Republican attorney and has served as the Vice Chairman for the Republican Party since 2008.He has served as general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee since 1978.^[1] In addition to extensive advocacy for the pro-life agenda, Bopp has represented several parties challenging campaign finance laws and disclosure laws. The New York Times credits him with being the driving force behind the Supreme Court ruling January 2010 in the Citizens United case, in which the Court ruled that corporations, unions and nonprofit groups have the right to spend as much as they want supporting or opposing the election of a candidate. ^[2]

Recently, Bopp has sponsored an initiative titled: "Republican Purity Test," which "would require candidates seeking party contributions and support to agree to at least eight of 10 positions on issues including abortion, gay marriage and gun control." ^[3]

Bopp also helps run the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an organization whose website showcases Bopp's achievements.^[4]. As ABC News reports:

"Bopp's efforts have attracted support from conservative luminaries and wealthy GOP patrons. Tax records show the board of the James Madison Center has received at least $95,000 from the DeVosFoundation, $300,000 from the Kohler Foundation, and $170,000 from the Roe Foundation. Among its board members are David A. Norcross, who has served as the Republican Party's general counsel, and former Michigan Republican Chairwoman Betsy DeVos, whose husband ran for governor and chairs the DeVos Foundation." ^[5]

Bopp is also the main incorporator for the Faith and Family Alliance. [1].

Bopp on campaign finance disclosure requirements: “Groups have to be relieved of reporting their donors if lifting the prohibition on their political speech is going to have any meaning,” he said. Requiring groups that buy political commercials to report their donors is almost as punitive, he said, “as an outright criminal go-to-jail-time prohibition.” [2].

bopp's High Profile Cases}:

In 2007, Bopp represented the Wisconsin Right to Life Committee against the FECin a lawsuit challenging a provision of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act. The Supreme Court found in favor of the Wisconsin Right to Life Committee and held that the McCain-Feingold act was unconstitutional as applied to this 501(c)(4) non-profit Corporation. [3]. The Supreme Court further held that the act did not apply because (1) the ads are not expressly advocating and (2) there is no compelling governmental interest in restricting this organization's speech. [4].

Recently, Bopp has been characterized as: "the driving force behind the case that led the Supreme Court in January 2010 to rule that corporations, unions and nonprofit groups have the right to spend as much as they want supporting or opposing the election of a candidate." [5]. Although Bopp was replaced by Washington DC counsel once the case reached the Supreme Court, Bopp guided the Citizens United case all the way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court. [6].

Before Citizens United, Bopp has served as lead counsel for Protect Marriage Washington, an organization that has been opposing the release of the names of people in Washington, who signed a petition to place referendum on the ballot opposing extension of marriage rights to domestic partners. [[7]](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1 "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1"). The district court ordered Washington's secretary of state not to disclose the names of the signers. [[8]](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1 "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1"). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ordered for the release of the names. [[9]](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1 "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01petition.html?_r=1"). Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, which previously allowed the district court order to stand, has agreed to hear this case on the merits. [10].

In Oct. 2008, Bopp became counsel for the Committee for Truth in Politics and filed a complaint against the Federal Election Commission on their behalf. [11]. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the FEC's disclaimer and reporting requirements for electioneering communications. [12]. The Committee for Truth in Politics refuses to disclose the sources of their funding,specifically with respect to ads that ran in the 2008 election. The U.S. District Court has ordered a stay in Koerber v. FEC until the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case. [13].

SourceWatch resources

Committee for Truth in Politics}:

External Resources

Contact

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

National Building

1 South 6th Street

Terre Haute, Indiana 47807-3510

Telephone: 812/232-2434

812/235-3685 (fax)

E-mail: bcb@bopplaw.com

References

↑ Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom Firm Bio, Web page, accessed February 13, 2010
↑ New York Times James Bopp, Jr. Biosketch. February 13, 2010
↑ John McCormich Republican Party Considers Alternative to Candidate Litmus Test Bloomberg.com Business Week, January 29, 2010
↑ Matthew Mosk [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/citizens-united-fec-return-corporate-influence-peddling/story?id=9545153&page=2 Citizens United v. the FEC: The Return of Corporate Influence Peddling? As Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case, Wealthy GOP Donors Bankroll Attack on Campaign Finance Law], ABC News January 13, 2010
↑ Matthew Mosk [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/citizens-united-fec-return-corporate-influence-peddling/story?id=9545153&page=2 Citizens United v. the FEC: The Return of Corporate Influence Peddling? As Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case, Wealthy GOP Donors Bankroll Attack on Campaign Finance Law], ABC News January 13, 2010

New York Times Jan. 29, 2010

---

mojo

https://www.motherjones.com/politics**/2010/01/brains-behind-citizens-united/

Thursday's Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate spending in elections marks the latest in a remarkable string of victories for a Republican lawyer in Terre Haute, Indiana. James Bopp Jr. did not argue Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionbefore the high court, but the case was entirely his brainchild.

Bopp, the longtime counsel to the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, has now almost singlehandedly obliterated many of the nation's relatively modest restrictions on corporate election spending, including the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. And he's done it all in the name of the First Amendment. In 2007, Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to eliminate limits on corporate funding of television ads in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, arguing that the rules were an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. A few months later, he represented Citizens United in its battle with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over its efforts to air a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton on television during the election season—the case that led to Thursday’s major Supreme Court decision.

As with so many of Bopp's cases, few people took the Citizens United challenge seriously in the beginning. During one hearing in early 2008, US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth actually laughed at Bopp for comparing the Citizens United film—which portrayed Hillary Clinton as a European Socialist—to investigative news shows like 60 Minutes.Since then, judges, good government groups and various other political actors have learned that Bopp is not to be laughed at. After the Supreme Court decided to take the case, Citizens United hired renowned high court litigator Ted Olson to handle the oral arguments, but the case bears all the trademarks of Bopp’s handiwork.

Bopp has a knack for finding provisions in campaign finance laws that have been taken for granted for decades as acceptable restrictions on corporate speech. Then, he makes ACLU-like arguments that such rules violate the First Amendment. Part of Bopp's genius lies in his choice of clients. Although his cases ultimately benefit powerful corporations, their public faces are usually small advocacy groupslike Wisconsin Right to Life or Citizens United that are seeking to participate in political debate. Perhaps most impressive, he crafts cases that appear persuasive to people who do not share his agenda (he is a staunch conservative and member of the Republican National Committee). As a journalist and civil libertarian, I was deeply conflicted about the Citizens United case. After viewing the *Hillary*documentary, I thought Americans ought to be able to watch it on television if they wanted to, and was sympathetic to Bopp's argument that the campaign finance rules in this case resulted in censorship. Clearly the Supreme Court was, too.

Not content with blasting 100 years of campaign-finance precedent out of the water, Bopp is taking aim at other established principles of American election law. His firm is currently representing anti-gay marriage forces in Washington State, California and Maine, where he has filed lawsuits challenging basic transparency provisions in those states' election laws. In October,Bopp persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision allowing the disclosure of the names of people who signed petitions to put an anti-gay marriage measure on the Washington State ballot.In California, Bopp has sued state elections officials in an attempt to have state donor disclosure rules deemed unconstitutional. Bopp has argued that laws requiring donor names to be made public subjected supporters of Proposition 8—which struck down gay marriage in the state—to harassment that violated their free speech rights. That case is still pending.

Bopp's firm has filed a similar suit in Maine, where the state's ethics and election commission is investigating the National Organization for Marriage for failing to register as a political committee and reveal its donors during its work on a ballot initiative that outlawed gay marriage in that state. As he did in California, Bopp has argued that the disclosure law is unconstitutional. A federal judge disagreed and ordered the National Organization for Marriage to reveal its donors, but Bopp's firm is fighting the decision. That case is likely to also end up before the Supreme Court in the not-so-distant future. As with Citizens United, it's hard to imagine that such a core provision of election law—in this case donor disclosure—could be struck down. But good government groups and campaign finance watchdogs would do well not to underestimate Bopp's power of persuasion.

Stephanie Mencimer is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/brains-behind-citizens-united

===

James Bopp, Jr.

Bopp, Coleson, & Bostrom Home Page

Born in Terre Haute, Indiana; admitted to the bar, 1973, Indiana; 1977, U.S. Supreme Court.

Education: Indiana University (B.A., 1970); University of Florida (J.D., 1973).

Editor: Restoring the Right to Life: The Human Life Amendment, Brigham Young University Press, 1984. Human Life and Health Care Ethics, University Publications of America, 1985.

Editor-in-Chief: Issues in Law and Medicine, 1985-present.

Professional Affiliations: General Counsel, James Madison Center for Free Speech, 1997-present. General Counsel, National Right to Life Committee, 1978-present. Special Counsel, Focus on the Family, 2004-present. President, National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, 1984-present. Commissioner, National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, 2005-present. Member, United States National Commission for UNESCO, 2004-2006. Member, Congressional Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee, 1987-1989. Member, National Institutes of Health, Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel, 1988. Member, President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1984-1987. Special Advisor, American Bar Association Working Group on the First Amendment and Judicial Elections, 2002 - 2003.

Political Affiliations: Vice Chairman, Republican National Committee, 2008-present. Indiana Republican Party, National Committeeman, 2006-present; State Party Treasurer, 2005-2006.

Member: The Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies, Co

-Chairman, Election Law Subcommittee, Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group, 1996-2005. Board of Governors, Republican National Lawyers Association, 2002-present. Indiana State Bar Association.

Awards: Legatus International, John Cardinal O’Connor Pro-Life Hall of Fame Award, 2005. Indiana Republican Party, State Chairman’s Award, 2001, 2005. Non-resident Tuition Scholarship, 1971.

Profiled: The Big Bopper, Exploding the Canons of Judicial Ethics, ABA Journal 30 (Nov. 2006).

Practice Areas: First Amendment Law, Campaign Finance Law, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Non-profit Corporations Law, Not-for-profit Tax Law, Health Care Law, Civil Litigation, Appellate Practice and United States Supreme Court Practice.

Resume of James Bopp, Jr.

Profile of James Bopp, Jr. in the ABA Journal

---

While the comedian Stephen Colbert’s plan to form a so-called Super PAC to raise money for federal elections attracted some attention last week, another Super PAC formed by a key Republican campaign lawyer filed registration papers with the Federal Election Commission. The Republican Super PAC Inc., formed by James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer, and Roger Villere, chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party, is designed to be a vehicle for unlimited contributions toward independent expenditures in support of Republican candidates at the national and state levels.

The new PAC will hold a discussion on Wednesday in Dallas to detail its plans. In an e-mail promoting the event, its founders wrote that the committee would allow donors to earmark contributions for specific races and would coordinate its activities with other independent entities “to bridge gaps in the independent campaigns supporting Republican candidates.”

“The best way to neutralize President Obama’s unprecedented $1 billion political war chest and the political spending by labor unions and wealthy Democrats is to build a super fund-raising infrastructure for independent expenditure spending,” the e-mail states.

Mr. Bopp is the lawyer who brought the court case Citizens United v. F.E.C., which opened the way for corporations, labor unions and other groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts independently to influence federal elections. Several prominent Super PACs active in the 2010 midterm elections, including the Karl Rove-advised American Crossroads, are planning similar efforts for the 2012 contest. Top Democrats have formed their own group, Priorities USA Action, partly in response to the successes enjoyed by Republican-backed PACs.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/citizens-united-lawyer-creates-super-pac/

---

June 22, 2011

A new loophole is being pried open in the campaign finance rules. It would enable federal candidates to once again solicit corporate money to finance organizations that promise to help them get elected.

The idea comes from a lawyer who has done more than anyone else over the years to upset the status quo in America's political money laws — James Bopp Jr., of Terre Haute, Ind.

Bopp brought the Citizens United v. FEC case and breached the wall between corporate money and partisan politics; he unraveled major provisions of the McCain-Feingold law; he has helped to make state judicial elections more expensive; he's fighting to undo mandatory disclosure of donors; and now, he says he's found a way for federal candidates to ask corporations for cash.

From the moment I met him, I always thought he was underestimated, you know, kind of a country lawyer from Terre Haute.

Laura Murphy, Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union

Bopp parsed two court rulings, one of them on a case he brought. By his reading, and contrary to past law, it's OK for a federal candidate to call up a CEO and make the ask. "I can read the law," he says, "and I felt confident that what we were doing was well within the strictures of the law."

Within the law, because the ask wouldn't be for the candidate's own campaign committee — it would be on behalf of an independent group called a superPAC, which would then spend the money in support of the candidate.

"The candidate is soliciting — saying this is a good bunch of people, they do independent expenditures, so I have no involvement in how they spend the money," Bopp says. "But they are willing to spend the money to help me if you'll make the contribution and earmark the contribution."

Bopp has organized a superPAC to use money raised this way. He scoffs at Democrats who want to do it too but are waiting for an all-clear from the Federal Election Commission.

"They want to get the FEC's permission," he says, "as if you go to Daddy and ask for permission."

Back Home In Terre Haute

Bopp has made his career challenging the campaign finance laws. His basic argument: First, the First Amendment says political speech shouldn't be regulated; second, the Supreme Court says political money is speech; and third, the very complexity of campaign finance law stifles free speech.

As he put it back in 2003, when the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold: "People in Iraq now have more freedom than people in America about their government."

Jim Bopp's Hot 9

Top cases from his docket of challenges to campaign finance laws

Case	Year	Outcome	Significance
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. Swanson	2011	Bopp argues that Minnesota cannot ban corporate political contributions or require disclosure of independent expenditures.	Being argued in lower courts; would let candidates raise corporate money, allow undisclosed political spending by corporations.
Doe #1 v. Reed	2010	Supreme Court upheld Washington state law requiring disclosure of petitioners for anti-gay-marriage ballot question.	Despite losing this broad challenge to disclosure, Bopp has narrower anti-disclosure cases pending in lower courts.
*Citizens United v. FEC*	2010	Supreme Court overturned century-old understanding that corporations and unions could not directly promote or attack candidates.	First major loophole in the ban on corporate money in partisan politics.
Leake v. North Carolina Right To Life	2008	Appeals court struck down contribution limits for advocacy groups that spend independently on political activity but don't give money to candidates or party committees.	With another appeals court case, laid foundation for superPACs, which raise unregulated money from corporations, unions, wealthy donors.
*Randall v. Sorrell*	2006	Supreme Court ruled that Vermont cannot set contribution limits so low that candidates are unable to finance viable campaigns.	Ended a short-lived trend by good-government advocates to lower ceiling on contributions.
*FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life*	2006, 2007	Supreme Court gutted key provision of McCain-Feingold law, which barred corporate funding for campaign season ads that promote or attack candidates.	Provision was one of two central elements of McCain-Feingold.
*McConnell v. FEC*	2003	Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold law, which bars federal candidates and party committees from soliciting or using "soft money" from corporations, unions and the wealthy, and which limited corporate and union funding for ads identifying candidates.	Decision was the high-water mark for campaign finance laws.
FEC v. Beaumont	2003	Supreme Court upheld the 1907 ban on corporate contributions to candidates.	In wake of Citizens United,this precedent is now considered vulnerable to a new challenge.
Dimick v. Republican Party of Minnesota; Republican Party of Minnesota v. White	2006, 2002	Supreme Court overturned typical state restrictions on judicial elections, rules that candidates can solicit contributions, run using party labels, opine on upcoming court cases.	Instrumental in changing state judicial elections from staid affairs into costly, partisan contests.

Bopp was more relaxed recently during a break at a conservative conference in McLean, Va.

"You have to hire a big-time Washington lawyer, or a big-time Terre Haute lawyer, and spend a whole bunch of money to find out whether or not the government's going to give you permission to talk about the government," he says.

And that's the thing about Bopp. He looms tall, and slightly shaggy, over Washington — but he's not a creature of it. The Bopp law firm — just 10 lawyers and a nonprofit group — are in Terre Haute, where he and his wife grew up.

He says his first national client, in 1978, was the National Right to Life Committee. He was about 30 then and started handling campaign finance issues with right-to-life groups as his plaintiffs. Now he has dozens of clients across the conservative landscape.

He's also on the Republican National Committee and is prominent in the Federalist Society, an incubator for conservative legal ideas. Yet he never moved to D.C. He and his wife once considered it, though.

"We had three young daughters," he says, "and we wanted to have a relatively conservative place for them to grow up."

The New Wild West

"From the moment I met him, I always thought he was underestimated, you know, kind of a country lawyer from Terre Haute," says Laura Murphy, the Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

By Bill Turque, Published: August 29

Rather than tarnish their standard bearer by challenging his signature legislative achievement, the platform’s authors skirted the issue entirely.

It says there should be next to none.

interview: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/23/147294511/understanding-the-impact-of-citizens-united

---

Moyers http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02192010/citizensunited.html

---

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Bopp,_Jr.

James Bopp, Jr. is a Republican attorney and has served as the Vice Chairman for the Republican Party since 2008. He has served as general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee since 1978.^[1] In addition to extensive advocacy for the pro-life agenda, Bopp has represented several parties challenging campaign finance laws and disclosure laws. The New York Times credits him with being the driving force behind the Supreme Court ruling January 2010 in the Citizens United case, in which the Court ruled that corporations, unions and nonprofit groups have the right to spend as much as they want supporting or opposing the election of a candidate. ^[2]

Bopp also helps run the James Madison Center for Free Speech, an organization whose website showcases Bopp's achievements.^[4]. As ABC News reports:

"Bopp's efforts have attracted support from conservative luminaries and wealthy GOP patrons. Tax records show the board of the James Madison Center has received at least $95,000 from the DeVosFoundation, $300,000 from the Kohler Foundation, and $170,000 from the Roe Foundation. Among its board members are David A. Norcross, who has served as the Republican Party's general counsel, and former Michigan Republican Chairwoman Betsy DeVos, whose husband ran for governor and chairs the DeVos Foundation." ^[5]

Bopp is also the main incorporator for the Faith and Family Alliance. [1].

SW 2x?

Bopp's High Profile Cases

In Oct. 2008, Bopp became counsel for the Committee for Truth in Politics and filed a complaint against the Federal Election Commission on their behalf. [11]. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the FEC's disclaimer and reporting requirements for electioneering communications. [12]. TheCommittee for Truth in Politics refuses to disclose the sources of their funding,specifically with respect to ads that ran in the 2008 election. The U.S. District Court has ordered a stay in Koerber v. FEC until the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case. [13].

SourceWatch resources

Committee for Truth in Politics

BOPP, COLESON & BOSTROM

National Building

1 South 6th Street

Terre Haute, Indiana 47807-3510

Telephone: 812/232-2434

812/235-3685 (fax)

E-mail: bcb@bopplaw.com

References

↑ Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom Firm Bio, Web page, accessed February 13, 2010
↑ New York Times James Bopp, Jr. Biosketch. February 13, 2010
↑ John McCormich Republican Party Considers Alternative to Candidate Litmus Test Bloomberg.com Business Week, January 29, 2010
↑ Matthew Mosk [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/citizens-united-fec-return-corporate-influence-peddling/story?id=9545153&page=2Citizens United v. the FEC: The Return of Corporate Influence Peddling? As Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case, Wealthy GOP Donors Bankroll Attack on Campaign Finance Law], ABC News January 13, 2010
↑ Matthew Mosk [http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/citizens-united-fec-return-corporate-influence-peddling/story?id=9545153&page=2Citizens United v. the FEC: The Return of Corporate Influence Peddling? As Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case, Wealthy GOP Donors Bankroll Attack on Campaign Finance Law], ABC News January 13, 2010

New York Times Jan. 29, 2010